Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[BluesStringer]

I have been following this convoluted post. From what I can see, everyone has a right to be stupid. Let me give some examples; it is perfectly legal to crawl under a car that is jacked up on a wobbly bumper jack, it is perfectly legal to ride a bicycle on a heavily trafficked two lane road that has no shoulder, It is perfectly legal to store your gun anywhere you please, even in a tissue box. There are people that do these things every day, there are even people that carry their gun stuck in their belt sans holster. The real benefit of these actions is to the gene pool. Darwin is right.

Then you absolutely have not been "following" this thread. No one is arguing against good safety practices. The main argument is that there shouldn't be any laws mandating that a "one-size-fits-all" set of practices be imposed upon those of us whose individual circumstances don't get anywhere near fitting the set of circumstances that started the argument, and which any law would ostensibly be intended to address, which was:

This is how kids get access to guns. Keep it on your person or in a locked safe.

To which the following and others of the same gist replied:

I have no kids, no kids ever are in my house. Something like the tissue box might work for me, if it held together well.

To which was bleated:

You don't have to 'have kids' for a kid to get your gun.

Which, after a couple of back-and-forths led to this mistaken statement, which was repeated several times right up until this nonsense was posted about 4:30 this morning after my making multiple postings with absolute proof of its inaccuracy:

Strict Scrutiny is what struck down the Chicago handgun ban: The Heller Decision and Strict Scrutiny - The Truth About Guns

I'm not reading the rest of your post as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

And in fact, even the link he offered to make his non-point was actually just another proof of what I've been trying to tell him all along - he's 100% wrong about strict scrutiny ever having been applied to the Second Amendment in any level of federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, until the Fourth Circuit just did so for the first time in the history of history just two days ago, February 4, 2016 in the case of Kolbe v. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014).

As you say, the tissue box storage method, just like the other potentially unsafe practices you mentioned, are all perfectly legal, so why this guy brings up strict scrutiny and court rulings etc. in relation to the tissue box can only mean he wants a law that will impose his ideas about safe storage on the rest of us for whom no safety issue exists because we either don't have kids, or if we do they're grown and responsible enough to be trusted around a loaded tissue box, or we never have children visit our homes, or any combination thereof, and that is what this "convoluted" post has morphed into being about because the guy won't admit that he is mistaken about an extremely important and significant matter of law regarding our rights to keep arms by any damn method we choose within our own homes.

With all of the last paragraph in mind, there is also no "gene pool" or Darwinian issue involved with storing weapons unlocked in one's own home when they don't have kids and none ever visit, because it's no more of a threat of spontaneous discharge while it's leaning in a corner within reach from your bed, or sitting on your night-stand, or on your kitchen table, than it poses the threat of spontaneous discharge while holstered on your belt or locked away in a safe. It's really a rather ridiculous assertion to be frank.

Besides that, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.

Blues

 

[DGeorge]

AS I SAID, there is no law, restriction, mandate, constitutional amendment, NOTHING, that says you have no right to keep your gun in a tissue box and NOT locked up or on your person. What I said was, as is many other legal things, it is stupid to do so. The comments about the gene pool and Darwin were merely humorous add ons. Apparently you have no sense of humor. Ask any fire arms instructor what he/she thinks of tissue box hide outs.

 

[BluesStringer]

AS I SAID, there is no law, restriction, mandate, constitutional amendment, NOTHING, that says you have no right to keep your gun in a tissue box and NOT locked up or on your person. What I said was, as is many other legal things, it is stupid to do so.

I simply answered the parts of your post that said this was a "convoluted post" and fully ignored the implied insult to anyone who doesn't agree with you or BlueSHILL that they must be stupid if they don't agree with y'all, and went on to answer your first post directly explaining the source of frustration and angst within this "convoluted post." Clearly you weren't, and still aren't, "following" what has caused the "convoluted" nature of this thread. It comes very nearly entirely from BlueSHILL, and now you, who must interject that free people acting freely in their own best interests that they are free to freely decide for themselves what those best interests are, must be more stupid than you, which, considering the truthfulness and accuracy of that last observation, would have to be pretty damned stupid.

The comments about the gene pool and Darwin were merely humorous add ons. Apparently you have no sense of humor.

I don't know.....I thought that last little bit I just typed was pretty damned funny. Maybe you have to be smarter to find the humor in it?

Ask any fire arms instructor what he/she thinks of tissue box hide outs.

Why would I do that? I don't use such a device. I have guns in various places around the house/property, pretty well-hidden, but easy and quick to get to in case they're needed...well...easily and quickly, and all locked up only when we both (my wife and I) will be gone at the same time, which has probably only happened 10 or 15 times since moving here last March. No trigger-locks, no bio-metric handgun-safes, no wall-mounted shotgun/rifle locking mechanisms, and get this, in more than 52 years of being a gun owner, I've had exactly one negligent discharge, but it had absolutely nothing to do with where or how the gun was stored or a child getting at the weapon that I take full responsibility for negligently discharging. No one was hurt, just my pride as I was highly embarrassed even though I was totally alone at the time, but whatever, you still demonstrate that you haven't actually "followed" this "post" because you seem to think that everyone is arguing over the usefulness (or not) of the tissue box shown in the OP. We're not. We're arguing over whether adult free people should have to adapt to others' ideas of what is "legal," or stupid or unsafe for that matter, when not adapting puts absolutely no one, children or otherwise, in any more danger than if we did adapt. Our answer is clearly and resoundingly, "No freakin' way!" BlueSHILL's answer is that there ought to be a law forcing us to adapt to his SOPs concerning safety. Screw dat.

Perhaps another review of the "post" will help you get caught up to where you actually can follow along?

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

AS I SAID, there is no law, restriction, mandate, constitutional amendment, NOTHING, that says you have no right to keep your gun in a tissue box and NOT locked up or on your person. What I said was, as is many other legal things, it is stupid to do so. The comments about the gene pool and Darwin were merely humorous add ons. Apparently you have no sense of humor. Ask any fire arms instructor what he/she thinks of tissue box hide outs.

When someone, even a firearms instructor, starts advocating against storing firearms in ways that particular individual thinks is inappropriate, irresponsible, and unacceptable, then that person is advocating limiting/restricting/infringing upon the right to keep (store) firearms.

If you (or a firearms instructor, or any other person) thinks it is irresponsible to store (keep) a pistol in a tissue box then don't do it but kindly do not advocate that no one do it simply because what method of storage (keeping) you consider irresponsible for you because you might have kids/irresponsible relatives-adults visiting may not be irresponsible for me because no kids/irresponsible relatives-adults have been in my house for the past decade and I doubt any will for decades to come.

And if folks advocate that the government pass laws that require no one be allowed to keep their pistols in a tissue box (no you did not do that even though it appears you condemned keeping arms in ways you think unacceptable as stupid.. I am only explaining) then those folks are advocating having the government forcing limitations (infringements) upon the right to keep arms.

 

[DGeorge]

Its not only irresponsible, its stupid, and there is no cure for stupid.

If you take condoms to a family reunion you might be a redneck.
If you store your gun in a tissue box you might be a ........

 

[BluesStringer]

Its not only irresponsible, its stupid, and there is no cure for stupid.

If you take condoms to a family reunion you might be a redneck.
If you store your gun in a tissue box you might be a ........

If people don't store their guns the way that you think is best for them, then they might be a what? It's your fantasy that you're so much better and smarter than anybody except for BlueSHILL in this thread, so finish the sentence. We might be a what?

I'll tell ya what I think is stupid of gun owners to do - lock their gun(s) away where they can't get to them in a moment's notice. Or keep them in a retention holster while the weapon is sitting on the nightstand (same as the first stupid act in essence). I think concealed carry puts one at an extreme disadvantage in multiple ways, especially when it's tucked under one or two shirts, is in any kind of holster that requires two hands to draw, or any kind of holster that is more difficult or impossible to draw from a sitting position, and again, these stupidities are basically the same stupid act as locking one's gun(s) away where they can't easily and quickly access them.

They are also all stupidities that I lived through practicing for around 15 times more years than the 2+ that I've been open carrying for now. Everyone tries things that don't turn out to be their normal SOP in the long-run. The trick is being open to different ideas than those fed to you by some gun "expert" or a CCW instructor whom you only spend enough time with to get your permission slip, another dumb practice to anyone who views themselves as free men and women and who lives in a jurisdiction, like where I live, that you can open carry without paying for the privilege or begging for government's permission. Volunteering to live under the thumb of government is one of the stupidest things I can think of, yet millions of gun owners do it rather own their rights right out in front of God and everybody.

On that last point I found it interesting to review your posting history here so far. Your first introductory post said:

Hello,
Dgeorge from Northern Virginia here. I think its time for me to join other like minded people to exchange ideas and give and get support for constitutional rights.

And yet here you are with like-minded people who are doing nothing but arguing in favor of our constitutional rights, and repeating multiple times how stupid you think we are. Or that our belief that we're perfectly safe in our own homes storing our weapons somehow other than how you and/or BlueSHILL would choose to store yours, makes us rednecks, gene pool polluters and candidates for some Darwin Award even though not a single soul has ever been hurt, harmed or killed by our storage practices.

I think it's kind of stupid of you to introduce yourself to the board the way you did, and then post as though you're above everybody else, or smarter than everybody else, and argue such regardless of how vociferously we have argued four-square in favor of our (and your) constitutional rights, which combines to expose your first post as being, at best, very self-unaware, and at worst, just an outright lie.

But, c'est la vie. At least now we know who/what you are.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Then you absolutely have not been "following" this thread. No one is arguing against good safety practices. The main argument is that there shouldn't be any laws mandating that a "one-size-fits-all" set of practices be imposed upon those of us whose individual circumstances don't get anywhere near fitting the set of circumstances that started the argument, and which any law would ostensibly be intended to address, which was:

Did you ever notice that no one cited a law they were allegedly supporting? You keep talking about laws, but is there even one being proposed?

And in fact, even the link he offered to make his non-point was actually just another proof of what I've been trying to tell him all along - he's 100% wrong...

Who are you talking about?

As you say, the tissue box storage method, just like the other potentially unsafe practices you mentioned, are all perfectly legal, so why this guy brings up strict scrutiny and court rulings etc.

That's what happens when people introduce tangents. This thread has nothing to do with 'natural rights', or even the right to keep and bear arms, as this thread is nothing more then an add for a product.

Yes, the product is legal, and stupid people will buy it, and give anti-gun more ammunition.

 

[Blueshell]

AS I SAID, there is no law, restriction, mandate, constitutional amendment, NOTHING, that says you have no right to keep your gun in a tissue box and NOT locked up or on your person. What I said was, as is many other legal things, it is stupid to do so. The comments about the gene pool and Darwin were merely humorous add ons. Apparently you have no sense of humor. Ask any fire arms instructor what he/she thinks of tissue box hide outs.

Re-quoted for truth.

 

[Blueshell]

I'll tell ya what I think is stupid of gun owners to do - lock their gun(s) away where they can't get to them in a moment's notice.

This tissue box is a prime example of inaccessibility. Not only do you have to retreat to the room it's in, as opposed to having the gun on your person, but you have to fumble with the box to get the gun, which you wouldn't have to do if the gun was on your person, and then you have to load the gun, which you wouldn't have to do if the gun was on your person.

 

[Blueshell]

How convenient..... just dismiss definitions because you do not agree with them.

It's not accurate as a dictionary. The Free Dictionary's definitions aren't accurate. That's why I dismiss the dictionary. Any topic, any word, The Free Dictionary get's it wrong most of the time.

Use Webster.

You (and unfortunately many other gun owners) have accepted that the right to keep and bear arms can be limited (infringed) ...

A limit is not necessarily an infringement.

You're so full of **** :biggrin:

 

[Blueshell]

I have guns in various places around the house/property, pretty well-hidden, ...

You should face a felony reckless endangerment charge for each one. You're an idiot.

 

[Bikenut]

It's not accurate as a dictionary. The Free Dictionary's definitions aren't accurate. That's why I dismiss the dictionary. Any topic, any word, The Free Dictionary get's it wrong most of the time.

Use Webster.


A limit is not necessarily an infringement.

You're so full of **** :biggrin:

Any limit is an infringement.

infringement: definition of infringement in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

infringement
-snip-
2The action of limiting or undermining something:-snip-

bold and underline added by me for emphasis...

But then, if you acknowledge that a limit is an infringement (maybe you will dismiss the Oxford dictionary?) your entire argument in favor of limiting (infringing) the right to keep arms goes out the window so you absolutely must double down... and even use censored words in an attempt to lend validity to your argument.

Your own postings show you to be yet another gun owning picker and chooser of what you consider reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable for other people to store (keep) their arms anti gunner lite otherwise known as a FUDD....

Urban Dictionary: Fudd

Fudd
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.
Underline added by me for emphasis....

I suppose you will dismiss the Urban dictionary too. I mentioned in an earlier post that I should thank you for the opportunity to counter your pro gun control postings. Yes, advocating to limit where and how arms are kept is ... advocating in favor of gun control. Well, I've decided to actually thank you..... so thank you for exposing yourself as what you are.... an anti gunner lite FUDD.

Oh... and just because you don't like the Free Dictionary only means ... you don't like the Free Dictionary. And you seem to have missed the fact that I also referenced the Oxford dictionary now and in the past. But there you go... in your arrogance you not only think I, and others, should be limited to what you think is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" for how we -keep- our arms..... you are now telling me what dictionary to use.

 

[Bikenut]

Its not only irresponsible, its stupid, and there is no cure for stupid.

If you take condoms to a family reunion you might be a redneck.
If you store your gun in a tissue box you might be a ........

How about discussing instead of insulting and ridiculing?

 

[DGeorge]

I did express my opinion. I will reiterate. I do not believe in any infringements of rights, period. If you want to crawl under that car being held up by a wobbly bumper jack I applaud your right to do so. I may even attend your funeral if invited. If you want to hang guns from strings attached to the ceiling in your house I say go for it. If you want to hide guns in tissue boxes I again say go for it. If you prefer mexican carry its alright.

My opinion remains. It is stupid.

 

[BluesStringer]

Did you ever notice that no one cited a law they were allegedly supporting? You keep talking about laws, but is there even one being proposed?

You should face a felony reckless endangerment charge for each one. You're an idiot.

Having a hard time keeping your anti-liberty, anti-gun-rights memes straight, aren't you. You say outright that I've broken some felony law that doesn't even exist in my jurisdiction, and I'm the idiot?

Who are you talking about?

You, 'Panky, you. The exchange to which I was referring was only yesterday morning. Can't even remember that far back? And I'm the idiot? Oh, that's right, you refused to even read what I said about strict scrutiny never being used to decide a 2A case at the federal appeals court level. And I'm the idiot?

Here's the exchange again, where I prove that the link that you provided to support your contention that Heller was decided under strict scrutiny decimates that contention itself:

Strict Scrutiny is what struck down the Chicago handgun ban: The Heller Decision and Strict Scrutiny - The Truth About Guns

I'm not reading the rest of your post as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

Apparently you didn't even read your own link. They excerpt from the Heller ruling itself the following passage:

The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster...
(emphasis mine)

The court didn't even define which level of scrutiny they applied in Heller, and guess what genius? Heller is not what struck down the Chicago gun ban. That would be McDonald, which also did not include any allusion to strict scrutiny.

It's utterly baffling why you would refuse to read something, then quote from the same paragraph that includes a Link Removed that you're wrong about strict scrutiny ever being applied to the Second Amendment at the federal appeals court level before Link Removed, and go on to prove that it's clearly you who doesn't know what he's talking about while accusing the guy who has provided you proof that he does of the same thing.

That's what happens when people introduce tangents. This thread has nothing to do with 'natural rights', or even the right to keep and bear arms...

Oh my goodness. Here's your freakin' tangent:

"Shal not be infringed" means any limitation has to comply with the rules, and since RTKB is a spicificaly enumerated right, SCOTUS sets the rubric at Strict Scrutiny.

An infringement is a limitation that doesn't obay the rules. If a limitation follows the rules, Strict Scrutiny in this case, that limitation is not an infringement.

What I advocate removing from the market are these silly gadgets that encourage people to leave their guns just laying around; or, that these things have some kind of lock on them.

Of course. Your firearm should be either on your person, or locked. Define for yourself what 'locked' means. In a locked car, in a locked room, in a lock box, in a safe...when I store my revolver in my bag at work it's just trigger locked. I even keep it loaded. That's about where I set the bar.

In this case it's the Strict Scrutiny standard.

Unless locked or disabled; a trigger lock or a bolt removed, for example, yes. Either on your person, or locked. I've been nothing but clear on that point. On your person, or locked.

"Shale not be infringed" means any desired limitations must meet Strict Scrutiny. There can be limitations, such as the requirement to be of the Age Of Majority(18 years old) to buy, for example, but every limit must either pass the Strict Scrutiny test or be struck down.

That's only a sampling of the tangents you went off on before I tried to tell you that, in the case of your over-use of the phrase, "strict scrutiny," it's a wrong tangent to begin with:

That legal fiction comes from the same body of oligarchs that invented the legal fiction of "strict scrutiny," which BTW, doesn't mean what you think it means to begin with, but is still an abomination to the intended meaning of every single word of the Constitution and its attendant Amendments nonetheless.

And yet the tangent continued:

"Shall not be infringed" means any proposed limitation must comply with the rules, in this case it's Strict Scrutiny.

A limitation isn't necessarily an infringement. It can be, but it might not be. A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to find out.

A given limit has to be tested with Strict Scrutiny in order to see.

This is demonstrated by applying Strict Scrutiny to each.

...We can see that's an infringement by applying Strict Scrutiny and observing that the limitation is not "narrowly tailored".

...By applying Strict Scrutiny we can see...

Again I tried to inform you that you were, and still are, wrong as can be. Didn't matter. Your tangent continued:

And Strict Scrutiny is not my personal standard. It's the national standard.

False. Strict Scrutiny applies to all rights spicificaly enumerated in the Constitution

...Strict Scrutiny applies to the 2A...

Strict Scrutiny is what struck down the Chicago handgun ban...

That is the tangent that I have been consistently responding to, but it's hardly the only one that you, BlueSHILL, have introduced.

You want laws mandating locks and other storage practices that fit your ideas of "good safety practices." It is beyond clear that you haven't a clue of which you speak about the Constitution, strict scrutiny, natural rights, infringements and pretty much anything else that you've introduced as a tangent that has survived for 133 posts as of this writing.

At this point you can't even legitimately be described as a "gun-grabber lite," you're a full-on pawn and supporter of the worst of the worst gun-grabbers in this country, and anyone who has read this thread with any sense of objectivity, knows that to be a fact.

Blues

 

[Bill Amsden]

Quite the thread.....and it started from a tissue holder....WOW....Friggin amazing......Fric and Frac are obviously obsessed with their beliefs, dudes they are stirring the pot. They know they are stirring the pot and enjoying it. I know of two others under different names that like to do this as well and have accused them of being government plants. I am always willing to listen to an opinion but when I disagree let it go, I am not open to a debate especially with this topic and the way it turned out. I'll store my weapons like I want and where the wife and I can get to them if needed. Oh and there are NO children in the house...Almost forgot, there was a comment early on in the thread about locked doors, once I lock my doors my house becomes my safe, enter at your own risk.

 

[Rhino]

You should face a felony reckless endangerment charge for each one. You're an idiot.

Mine aren't even hidden. Well, they're sort of inside things you have to reach into, but they aren't really hidden. You can see them if you're in the right place and looking in the right direction. Most of them anyway. There's nobody for me to endanger though. Nobody ever comes over here. Certainly not children. Don't know any. Don't know anyone who has them. There was the HVAC guy that had to come once right after a day of shooting in the back yard. Saw my AK sitting on the ping pong table awaiting cleaning. His response was, "Whoa! Cool!" He didn't seem endangered. He certainly didn't act endangered. And since it wasn't loaded, I wasn't too concerned that he would be endangered.
.
So let me think. Hmmmmm....... Nope. Not worried about endangering anyone. Carry on.

 

[Blueshell]

Having a hard time keeping your anti-liberty, anti-gun-rights memes straight, aren't you. You say outright that I've broken some felony law that doesn't even exist in my jurisdiction, and I'm the idiot?

I didn't accuse you of braking a law. That you think I did is what makes you an idiot. I said you should be charged with felony reckless endangerment, as in it should be against the law, not that is against the law.

That is the tangent that I have been consistently responding to, but it's hardly the only one that you, BlueSHILL, have introduced.

It's a counter argument to hatchetman's post #6. You're welcome to respond to any post as you see fit, but it would be wise to retain context if you do so.

You want laws mandating locks and other storage practices that fit your ideas of "good safety practices."

Of course. A below-ground pool should have a cover. Above-ground fuel storage should consist of a rated tank and gravel-filled land clear of other machinery or flammable hazards to 3' on all sides. Article 1 Section 8 USC requires Congress to provide every able bodied citizen with an assault-rifle capable of militia duty and the proper training to use it; this training necessarily includes proper storage of unused firearms. All electrical outlets should be GFI sockets. House paint should be lead free and older homes should receive a subsidy to remove old lead-based paint and repaint the house. Your staircase should have a handrail capable of supporting 300lbs+, the grip of which to rise approximately 36" from the step. Your headlights should illuminate at least a 100ft in front of your car. Etc. I support all kinds of safety related laws.

It is beyond clear that you haven't a clue of which you speak about the Constitution, strict scrutiny, natural rights, infringements and pretty much anything else that you've introduced as a tangent that has survived for 133 posts as of this writing.

Bikenut, post #80, brought up natural rights. Not me. See you aren't even paying attention.

At this point you can't even legitimately be described as a "gun-grabber lite," you're a full-on pawn and supporter of the worst of the worst gun-grabbers in this country, and anyone who has read this thread with any sense of objectivity, knows that to be a fact.

Blues

I donate money towards repealing the Gun Free School Zone Act; I donate money towards establishing national reciprocity of carry permits; I donate money towards re-legalizing machine guns...yeah that totally makes me a gun grabber :wacko:

My position is that you should at least put a trigger lock on a gun that isn't on your person. That's it.

That you take that to mean I support all kinds of other gun control is what makes you an idiot.

 

[Blueshell]

 

[Blueshell]

Any limit is an infringement.

Wrong.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

"Shale not be infringed" means any desired limitations must meet Strict Scrutiny. There can be limitations, such as the requirement to be of the Age Of Majority(18 years old) to buy, for example, but every limit must either pass the Strict Scrutiny test or be struck down.

The interstate handgun ban is being struck down for this very reason. The ban doesn't satisfy Strict Scrutiny; a key point being that you can transfer more powerfull rifles across state lines and that isn't a public safety issue.